livrepository.liverpool.ac.uklivrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/.../1/authoracceptedmanuscript_bjnm… ·...
Post on 20-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Portion size normality and additional within-meal food intake:
two crossover laboratory experiments
Ashleigh Haynes1, Charlotte A Hardman2, Jason C G Halford2, Susan A Jebb3, & Eric
Robinson2
1Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
2 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.
3 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK.
Note. This work was carried out while the first author was employed at the institution listed
at 2.
Corresponding author: Ashleigh Haynes, at address above,
ashleigh.haynes@cancervic.org.au.
Funding. This research was supported by a NIRG awarded by the Medical Research Council
(MRC) to ER (MR/N00218/1). The funding body had no role in the design of the study or
collection, analysis or interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.
Competing interests. ER’s salary is supported by the MRC. ER and JCGH have also
received research funding from the American Beverage Association and Unilever. CAH has
received research funding from the American Beverage Association and speaker’s fees from
the International Sweeteners Association. SAJ is an NIHR Senior Investigator and funded by
the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
(BRC) and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford
at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.
Number of figures: 2
Number of tables: 2
Running head: Portion size normality and additional food intake
Keywords: portion size; food environment; norms; food portion; obesity.
9
10
11
12
13
14
3
Abstract
Reducing food portion size could reduce energy intake. However it is unclear at what point
consumers respond to reductions by increasing intake of other foods. We predicted that a
change to a served portion size would only result in significant additional eating within the
same meal if the resulting portion size was no longer visually perceived as ‘normal’.
Participants in two crossover experiments (Study 1: N = 45; Study 2: N = 37; adults, 51%
female) were served different sized lunchtime portions on three occasions that were perceived
by a previous sample of participants as ‘large-normal’, ‘small-normal’, and ‘smaller than
normal’ respectively. Participants were able to serve themselves additional helpings of the
same food (Study 1), or dessert items (Study 2). In Study 1 there was a small but significant
increase in additional intake when participants were served the ‘smaller than normal’
compared to the ‘small-normal’ portion, m difference = 39 kcal, p = .002, d = 0.35, but there
was no significant difference between the ‘small-normal’ and ‘large-normal’ conditions, m
difference = 20 kcal, p = .08, d = 0.24. A similar pattern was observed in Study 2: m
difference = 36 kcal, p = .06, d = 0.18; m difference = 20 kcal, p = .26, d = 0.10. However,
smaller portion sizes were each associated with a significant reduction in total meal intake.
The findings provide preliminary evidence that reductions that result in portions appearing
‘normal’ in size may limit additional eating, but confirmatory research is needed. (250/250
words)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
4
Introduction
The portion sizes of some common food products have increased over the past 40 years (1-3).
Although a direct causal effect of increased portion sizes on population-level obesity has yet
to be demonstrated (4-7), there is now plausible evidence that larger portion sizes promote
increased food intake (8-11). This has led to the suggestion that reductions to portion sizes of
commercially available food products may reduce total energy intake and obesity (2, 4, 12,
13). A small number of studies provide evidence suggesting that reducing the size of food
portions can decrease food intake (14-16), however there is likely to be a point at which
decreasing portion size will invite additional eating (15), whereby consumers offset the
reduction by consuming more of other foods. This may result in little or no overall benefit of
reducing portion size, but it is currently unclear what determines the point at which reducing
portion size prompts additional eating and ceases to reduce overall energy intake.
We previously proposed a theoretical model based on the social norms that may
explain the influence of portion size on eating behaviour (17-22) and that may be used to
predict when additional eating in response to a reduced food portion size is likely to occur
(23). The ‘norm range’ model proposes that whether significant additional eating occurs is
driven in part by the visual perception of whether a portion is categorised as being ‘normal’
in size, and not solely by its objective size or energy content. While the perceived normality
of portion sizes may be malleable, we speculate that the range of portions that are perceived
as ‘normal’ by an individual will be largely stable. We also speculate that there will be
similarity between individuals, as previous work has demonstrated considerable overlap
between the range of portion sizes perceived as ‘normal’ by independent samples of
participants (23). If a portion is perceived to be ‘normal’ in size, a consumer is likely to
intend to, and subsequently consume most of, a portion without requiring additional food.
However, a portion that is perceived as ‘smaller than normal’ is likely to invite intake of
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
5
additional food, whereby a consumer may attempt to offset the perceived deficit by
subsequently consuming more of other food. Because there are a range of portions that are
perceived as ‘normal’, any reductions to portion size that occur within this range are likely to
reduce intake. However, a reduction that results in a portion being perceived as ‘smaller than
normal’ is likely to result in additional eating and therefore may not reduce overall intake.
Accordingly, rather than consumers achieving an equivalent level of energy intake regardless
of the size of the initial portion, the amount of additional intake may be biased by whether the
initial portion is visually categorised as ‘normal’ in size. These predictions were supported in
two virtual experiments which assessed ratings of intended consumption of an initial portion
and of additional food (23). However, the role of perceived normality of portion size in
influencing whether humans engage in actual additional eating in response to a reduced
portion size is yet to be examined.
In the present research we tested whether the norm range model could be used to
predict when a change to the portion size of a main component of a lunchtime meal would
exert a substantial influence on additional food intake, over and above the initial portion,
leading to an increase in energy intake within a single meal. Across two studies, we measured
intake from a lunchtime meal that featured a main component in one of three portion sizes in
a counterbalanced order: two portions that were perceived as ‘normal’ by an independent
sample of participants: one ‘large-normal’ and one ‘small-normal’, and a ‘smaller than
normal’ portion (Fig. 1). In addition to the initial portion of the main meal component,
additional food was made available from which participants could serve themselves if desired
(which represented additional intake). In Study 1, we examined additional intake of more of
the same food (resembling a single-course meal structure with optional ‘additional helpings’
of the same food). Sensory specific satiation, the phenomenon whereby appetite for a
consumed food decreases relative to a food that is not consumed (24), may limit the extent of
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
6
additional eating of the same food after a reduced portion. Therefore, Study 2 examined
additional intake of self-served ‘dessert’ food (from a selection of two different types) after
participants’ initial portion of a main course, to resemble a two-course meal structure.
We expected that participants would consume all or most of the portions initially
served, and in line with our proposed norm range theory, we hypothesised that consumers
would engage in greater additional eating beyond the initial served portion after consuming a
‘smaller than normal’ portion than a ‘small-normal’ portion ([a], Fig. 1), but that additional
intake would not significantly differ between the two ‘normal’ portions ([b], Fig. 1), despite
each comparison representing the same difference in food weight. We also predicted that total
meal energy intake in the ‘smaller than normal’ portion would not be lower than in the
‘small-normal’ portion size condition because of the extent of additional eating induced by
smaller than normal portions.
Methods
Participants
The studies were advertised to university staff and students and in the local
community as investigating ‘appetite and word categorisation’ (Study 1) and ‘mood stability’
(Study 2), to blind participants to the study aims. Individuals with food allergies, intolerances
or specific dietary requirements (including being vegetarian or vegan) or a history of eating
disorders were ineligible to participate; and participants were screened for general liking and
willingness to consume the test foods in each study. We recruited adults with a self-reported
BMI between 22.5 and 32.5kg/m2 as the BMI of approximately 70% of adults in England fall
within this range (25). We aimed to recruit an equal number of males and females and an
equal number of participants in two BMI bands: 22.5 – 27.49 kg/m2 and 27.5 – 32.5 kg/m2 to
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
7
avoid overrepresentation of participants with lower BMI values. Eligibility (including BMI
based on self-reported height and weight) was assessed using an online questionnaire.
Study foods
The served lunchtime portion sizes of the main meal component in each study were
selected based on portions reliably identified as ‘normal’ and ‘not normal’ in size by the
majority of an independent sample of participants recruited from the same population
(university staff and students and in the local community) using the same recruitment strata in
a recent study (23). In this previous study, participants viewed images of each meal varying
in portion size and judged whether each portion was ‘normal’ or ‘not normal’ in size. The
‘norm range’ (the range perceived as ‘normal’ by ≥60% of the sample) encompassed portion
sizes from 70%-120% of the manufacturer’s recommended serving of pasta with tomato
sauce, and 80-160% of the manufacturer’s recommended serving of chicken curry with rice
(23).
In Study 1, participants were served an initial portion of pasta (Tesco Everyday Value
quick cook penne, 153kcal/100g) with tomato sauce (Tesco Everyday Value pasta sauce,
33kcal/100g). A fixed ratio of pasta and sauce was prepared and mixed according to
standardised instructions, and then was served in the appropriate portion size on a standard-
sized white dinner plate (255mm diameter). In the ‘large-normal’ condition, participants were
served a portion that was equal to 120% of the manufacturer’s recommended serving size
(336g, 307 kcal). The portion was reduced to 90% of the recommended serving in the ‘small-
normal’ condition (252g, 230 kcal), and to 60% in the ‘smaller than normal’ condition (168g,
154kcal). A serving bowl containing an additional 200% of the recommended serving size of
pasta and tomato sauce was placed on a hot plate located on a cabinet located behind the
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
8
participant at the same time as the initial portion was served, to allow them to refill their plate
if desired.
In Study 2, participants were served an initial portion of chicken curry (Tesco
Chicken Curry, 90 kcal/100g) with rice (Tesco Microwave Long Grain Rice, 167kcal/100g).
The portions of curry and rice were individually weighed before being cooked according to a
standardised procedure. The curry and rice were served in a standardised manner on a
standard white dinner plate, such that the curry and rice were touching but not mixed.
Participants were served a portion that was equal to 130% of the manufacturer’s
recommended serving size (423g, 506 kcal) in the ‘large-normal’ condition, 100% in the
‘small-normal’ condition (325g, 389 kcal), and 70% in the ‘smaller than normal’ condition
(228g, 272 kcal). Participants were provided with a dessert buffet of two bowls containing
bite-sized pieces of caramel shortbread (Tesco Millionaire Bites, 500kcal/100g, 10 pieces,
approx. 120g, 575kcal), and flapjack (Tesco Mini Flapjack Bites, 458kcal/100g, 10 pieces,
approx. 150g, 687kcal), respectively. The dessert buffet was located behind the participant at
the same time as the initial portion was served, to allow them to serve themselves dessert if
desired. See online supplemental materials for macronutrient content of all meal components.
Measures
Hunger and fullness.
To assess pre and post-meal hunger and fullness, participants indicated their current
level of hunger and fullness on 100mm computerised visual analogue scales (VAS) ranging
from 0 (‘not at all’) to 100 (‘extremely’). Hunger and fullness ratings were presented in a
series of mood ratings (e.g., ‘how calm are you right now?’).
Perceived portion size normality.
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
9
As a manipulation check, participants were shown an image of each portion size
served during the study in a randomised order and were asked: “In your opinion, how normal
is the portion of pasta/chicken curry and rice shown below? By 'normal' we mean whether the
portion contains a normal amount of food to eat for a single meal.” Responses were provided
on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (“not normal, it is too small”) to 7, (“not normal, it
is too big”), with a midpoint of 4 (“normal”).
Usual portion
In Study 1, participants viewed images of pasta with tomato sauce portions (ranging
from 50% to 200% of the manufacturer’s recommended serving size at 10% increment
increases in portion size). The images were presented simultaneously and participants were
asked to indicate which portion was closest to the amount of pasta with tomato sauce they
would usually serve themselves.
In Study 2, participants completed a computer-based task programmed in Psychopy to
indicate the portion size of chicken curry and rice closest to their usual serving size. The task
began with the presentation of an image displaying a portion size of chicken curry with rice
equal to 40% of the manufacturer’s recommended serving size. Participants adjusted the size
of the displayed portion using the up and down arrow keys until it appeared equivalent to the
amount of that food they would usually serve themselves, when they pressed ‘enter’ to select
the portion size. Each arrow key press increased or decreased the portion by an increment of
10% of the recommended serving, to a maximum of 300%.
Procedure
Participants took part in either Study 1 or Study 2 and completed one lunchtime
testing session per condition, separated by a washout period of between 7 and 10 days. Each
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
10
condition of the design was completed in a counterbalanced (Study 1) or randomised order
(Study 2, using ‘RANDBETWEEN’ function, Microsoft Excel to assign participant to one of
six sequences). Participants were asked not to consume any energy-containing food or drink
for two hours preceding each session (scheduled to commence between 12 and 2pm). During
each session, participants first reported how long since they had last eaten, and in Study 1,
completed a short computer-based filler task ostensibly measuring word categorisation speed
(to bolster the cover story). Participants then completed pre-meal hunger and fullness ratings
before sitting at an empty table, and a researcher then served the lunch by placing the initial
portion (pasta, Study 1; curry with rice, Study 2) in front of them. The researcher informed
participants that once they had finished their served portion they could refill their plate with
more pasta from the serving bowl (Study 1) or serve themselves from the dessert buffet using
tongs onto a small side plate (Study 2) at their discretion, and then left the participant to
consume the meal alone. Participants were provided with as much time as they needed to
finish eating and were not required to finish the initial portion served. Participants then
completed post-meal hunger and fullness ratings and a post-meal word-categorisation task
(identical to pre-meal task) in Study 1 or mood-related filler measures in Study 2 (see online
supplemental materials). The weight of food consumed was calculated by measuring the
amount served and amount leftover using digital scales (Sartorius)1. Separate weights were
taken for each distinct meal component (e.g., plated pasta portion, ‘extra’ pasta portion, rice,
curry, and each dessert component). At the end of the final session, participants reported what
they thought was the aim of the study (free text response), completed the remaining on screen
self-report measures (including perceived portion size normality for each condition and a
standard battery of measures assessing eating habits and preferences, see Online
Supplemental Materials), and a researcher measured their height using a stadiometer (Seca)
1 Food weights were recorded in grams to the nearest 0.1g in Study 1, and to the nearest 0.01 in Study 2, due to a change in measurement equipment.
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
12
11
and weight using a digital scale (Salter), before debriefing2. Participants completed each
testing session individually in a quiet room. Study 1 was conducted between October and
December 2016 and Study 2 was conducted between May and July 2017. Both studies were
conducted in line with institutional ethical approval (IPHS-1516-LB-252-Generic
RETH000955, IPHS-1617-LB-277-Generic RETH000955) and participants provided
informed consent at the beginning of their first session and were provided with a financial
incentive to participate (£30). Study 2 was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework
(https://osf.io/txf9u/), and the research is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03731273).
Analysis plan
Power calculation
For Study 1, we calculated that a minimum sample size of 34 would be sufficient to
detect a medium sized effect of portion size on energy intake with 80% power and an alpha
level of 0.05 using a repeated-measures ANOVA (f2 = 0.25, correlation between repeated
measures = 0.5, non-sphericity correction = 0.75, G*Power 3.1) (9). We calculated that Study
2 required a sample size of 35 to be adequately powered (80%) to detect a difference between
additional intake after the initial portion in the ‘smaller than normal’ and ‘small-normal’
conditions that was observed in Study 1 (group parameters for power calculation: ‘smaller
than normal’ [m kcal = 124, sd – 114.44] and ‘small-normal’ [m kcal = 85.51, sd = 103.28,
correlation between conditions, r = 0.74). We aimed to recruit 48 participants in Study 1, and
40 participants in Study 2 to allow for potential exclusions, and to ensure an equal
representation of participants in each gender and BMI band.
Primary analyses
2 In Study 1, height was recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm in Study 1, and weight to the nearest 0.1 kg in Study 1. In Study 2, height was recorded to the nearest 0.5cm or nearest 0.1cm and weight to nearest 0.1 or 0.05 kg.
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
34
12
All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS 24.0 and were pre-registered for Study 2
unless otherwise stated. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) can be interpreted as small = .2, medium
= .5, and large = .8 (26). Three repeated-measures ANOVAs (with pairwise comparisons to
interpret significant main effects) were conducted to examine the effect of portion size
(smaller than normal, small-normal, large-normal) on (a) energy intake from the initial served
portion, (b) additional energy intake (amount consumed from the extra bowl of lunch food or
dessert buffet), and (c) total energy intake (sum of [a] and [b]). Where non-sphericity was
detected by a significant Mauchly’s test, Greenhouse Geisser corrected ANOVA results are
reported (indicated by adjusted degrees of freedom to two decimal places).
Sensitivity analyses
Two researchers independently coded the open-ended responses to the aims guessing
question as ‘aware’ of study aims if the participant referred to the influence of portion or
serving size of food on how much was eaten. Two sets of sensitivity analyses were
conducted. The analysis of the effect of portion size on energy intake was repeated excluding
(a) participants who guessed the aims of the study, and then (b) participants with outlying
total or additional energy intake in any portion size condition (>2.5 SD from condition
mean). We report whether these exclusions result in deviations from the pattern of
significance of the main analyses (i.e., any significant differences between conditions
becoming not significant, and vice versa).
Secondary analyses
To compare changes in hunger and fullness from pre- post meal between portion size
conditions, we conducted two 3 (portion size) x 2 (time: pre, post-meal) repeated-measures
ANOVAs. Significant interactions were followed up by examining differences in baseline
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
13
hunger and fullness between conditions, and significant baseline differences were followed
up with sensitivity analyses testing the main hypotheses using linear mixed models
controlling for baseline appetite ratings.
Perceived normality of the served portion sizes was compared between portion size
conditions using a repeated-measures ANOVA, and one-sample t-tests were conducted to
investigate whether participants perceived the portions to be significantly different from
normal by comparing the mean perceived normality with the midpoint of the scale. We also
report the median self-reported ‘usual portion size’ of each of the served main meal foods for
comparison with the presented portion sizes. In a post hoc exploratory analysis suggested by
an anonymous reviewer, we also examined the correlation between the perceived normality
rating of each portion size and additional intake in the respective portion size condition, and
calculated a single aggregated correlation between perceived normality and additional intake
across conditions within each study (using R package ‘rmcorr’ for repeated measures
correlation, 27). We also report the median self-reported ‘usual portion size’ of each of the
served main meal foods for comparison with the presented portion sizes.
To explore order effects, we tested whether the sequence in which participants were
served the three portions moderated the effect of portion size on energy intake by testing the
interaction between portion size condition and a between-subjects variable representing
portion size sequence using a 6 (representing condition sequence) x 3 mixed ANOVA for
each energy intake variable. This analysis was not pre-registered but was conducted to test
the robustness of the portion size effects.
Results
Sample characteristics
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
14
We recruited 49 participants for Study 1. One participant withdrew after session 1 due
to a scheduling conflict, two participants were served the same portion size in two sessions in
error, and one participant’s BMI was >2.5SD from the sample mean (BMI = 42.2 kg/m2) and
was excluded from analysis as decided a priori. Conducting the analyses with and without
this participant yielded the same pattern of results (i.e., none of the statistically significant
findings become non-significant, and vice versa). The final sample (N = 45, 23 women) had a
mean BMI of 26.9 kg/m2 (SD = 3.7; 18.9-35.3, n = 24 BMI <27.5, n = 21 BMI ≥ 27.5)3 and a
mean age of 30.4 years (SD = 12.7; 18-76). Seven participants were aware of the aim of the
study, and there were three outliers on either total or additional intake in at least one
condition. As decided a priori, data from these participants are included in the reported
analyses, but the significance of the results did not vary depending on their inclusion.
For Study 2, 41 participants were recruited as two participants withdrew after the first
session due to a scheduling conflict. An additional two participants were served the same
portion size in two sessions in error, leaving a final sample of 37 (19 women) with a mean
BMI of 26.9 kg/m2 (SD = 3.7, 20.1 – 35.5, n = 20 BMI <27.5, n = 17 BMI ≥ 27.5) and a mean
age of 32.2 years (SD = 12.2; 20-59). Seven participants were aware of the aims of the study,
and one participant’s total and additional energy intake in the small-normal condition was
>2.5 SD from the condition mean. As decided a priori, analyses are reported including data
from participants who guessed the aims and outliers on energy intake. Except where indicated
in footnotes, the significance of the results did not vary depending on whether these
participants were included or excluded. See Figure S1 for CONSORT flow diagram.
Effect of portion size on intake from initial portion
3 Participant eligibility was assessed using self-reported height and weight, while the reported sample characteristics are based on researcher-measured height and weight in the final session. The measured BMI of the sample exceeds the recruitment cut-off points because of errors in participant self-report.
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
567
15
Figure 2 displays energy intake from the initial portion (and mean percentage of the
initial portion consumed), energy intake from additional self-served food, and total energy
intake across portion size conditions in both studies. In Study 1 there was a significant effect
of portion size on energy intake from the initial portion, F(1.34, 59.06) = 530.54, p < .001,
partial η2 = .92 (Fig. 2a). As predicted, participants consumed significantly less from the
‘smaller than normal’ portion than the ‘small-normal’ portion, m difference = 72.3 kcal, SE =
2.5, p < .001, d = 6.28, and the ‘large-normal’ portion, m difference = 136.4 kcal, SE = 5.2, p
< .001, d = 5.56; and ate significantly less from the ‘small-normal’ portion than from the
‘large-normal’ portion, m difference = 64.0 kcal, SE = 4.4, p <.001, d = 2.37. Likewise, in
Study 2 there was a significant effect of portion size on energy intake from the initial served
portion, F(1.22, 43.96) = 194.80, p < .001, partial η2 = .84 (Fig. 2b). Participants consumed
significantly less from the ‘smaller than normal’ portion than the ‘small-normal’ portion, m
difference = 101.2 kcal, SE = 7.1, p < .001, d = 2.16, and the ‘large-normal’ portion, m
difference = 187.9 kcal, SE = 12.8, p < .001, d = 2.69; and ate significantly less from the
‘small-normal’ portion than from the ‘large-normal’ portion, m difference = 86.7 kcal, SE =
7.7, p < .001, d = 1.14.
Effect of initial portion size on additional intake after the initial portion
In Study 1, there was a significant effect of portion size on additional intake of pasta,
F(2, 88) = 12.70, p < .001, partial η2 = .22 (Fig. 2a). Consistent with predictions, additional
intake did not significantly differ between the ‘small-normal’ and ‘large-normal’ conditions,
m difference = 20.9 kcal, SE = 11.8, p = .08, d = 0.24, but was significantly higher in the
‘smaller than normal’ than in the ‘large-normal’ condition, m difference = 59.4 kcal, SE =
12.4, p < .001, d = 0.62, and in the ‘smaller than normal’ than the ‘small-normal’ condition,
m difference = 38.5 kcal, SE = 11.7, p = .002, d = 0.35.
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
16
In Study 2, portion size condition had a significant effect on additional energy intake
from the self-serve dessert buffet, F(2, 72) = 4.66, p = .01, partial η2 = .12 (Fig. 2b).
Consistent with predictions, additional intake did not significantly differ between the ‘small-
normal’ and ‘large-normal’ conditions, m difference = 19.9 kcal, SE = 17.4, p = .26, d = 0.10.
Additional intake was significantly higher in the ‘smaller than normal’ than in the ‘large-
normal’ condition, m difference = 55.5 kcal, SE = 19.5, p = .01, d = 0.26. Additional intake
was also higher in the ‘smaller than normal’ than the ‘small-normal’ condition, but this
difference was small in magnitude and not statistically significant, m difference = 35.6 kcal,
SE = 18.3, p = .06, d = 0.18. However, the difference in additional intake between the
‘smaller than normal’ and ‘small-normal’ conditions was statistically significant after
excluding participants who were aware of the study aims and one outlier4.
Effect of portion size on total meal energy intake
In Study 1, total meal energy intake was significantly different between portion size
conditions, F(2, 88) = 20.93, p < .001, partial η2 = .32 (Fig. 2a). Participants ate significantly
less overall in the ‘small-normal’ portion size condition than in the ‘large-normal’ condition,
m difference = 43.2 kcal, SE = 12.4, p = .001, d = 0.44, but contrary to predictions,
participants also ate significantly less overall in the ‘smaller than normal’ portion size
condition than in the ‘small-normal’ condition, m difference = 33.8, kcal SE = 11.4, p = .01,
d = 0.30, indicating that additional eating in the ‘smaller than normal’ condition only partially
offset the smaller size of the initial portion. Participants also ate significantly less in the
‘smaller than normal’ than in the ‘large-normal’ condition, m difference = 77.0 kcal, SE =
11.9, p < .001, d = 0.76.
4 Additional eating was significantly higher in the ‘smaller than normal’ portion condition than the ‘small-normal’ condition in Study 2 when participants who guessed the study aims were excluded from the analysis, m difference = 39.68 kcal, SE = 18.34, p =.04, d = 0.21, and when the participant with outlying additional energy intake was excluded, m difference = 38.14 kcal, SE = 18.66, p = .049, d = 0.19.
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
89
1011
17
The same pattern of results was observed in Study 2. Portion size condition
significantly affected total energy intake, F(2, 72) = 20.57, p < .001, partial η2 = .36 (Fig. 2b)
and as in Study 1, participants ate significantly less overall in the ‘small-normal’ than in the
‘large-normal’ portion size condition, m difference = 66.7 kcal, SE = 21.1, p = .003, d = 0.29,
but also ate significantly less overall in the ‘smaller than normal’ portion size condition than
in the ‘small-normal’ condition, m difference = 65.6 kcal, SE = 18.5, p = .001, d = 0.30.
Participants also ate significantly less in the ‘smaller than normal’ than in the ‘large-normal’
condition in Study 2, m difference = 132.3 kcal, SE = 22.1, p < .001, d = 0.54.
Hunger and fullness
In Study 1 there was a significant interaction between time (pre-post) and portion size
condition on hunger and fullness, explained by pre-meal appetite being lower in the ‘smaller
than normal’ condition (Table 1). Separate linear mixed models testing the main hypotheses
in Study 1 while controlling for pre-meal appetite revealed results consistent with the primary
analyses, except that in line with our theoretical predictions, there was no significant
difference in total meal intake between ‘smaller than normal’ and ‘small normal’ portion size
conditions, and a marginally significant difference in total meal energy intake between ‘large
normal’ and ‘small normal’ portions. There was no significant main effect of condition or
interaction between condition and time predicting appetite ratings in Study 2 (see Online
Supplemental Materials for full results and Table 1 for mean hunger and fullness ratings).
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
18Portion size normality and additional food intake
Perceived normality of portion sizes and ‘usual’ portion size
In Study 1, perceived normality significantly varied between portion sizes, F(2, 88) =
113.24, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.72 (Table 2). Pairwise comparisons confirmed that perceived
normality was significantly lower for the ‘smaller than normal’ than ‘small-normal’ portion
sizes, and for the ‘small-normal’ than ‘large-normal portions. One-sample t-tests showed that
the mean normality rating for the ‘smaller than normal’ portion size was significantly lower,
t(44) = -6.96, p <.001, d = 1.00, and the normality rating for ‘large-normal’ portion size was
significantly higher, t(44) = 6.09, p <.001, d = 0.91, than the test value of 4 (corresponding to
the mid-point of the scale, labelled ‘normal’). The mean normality rating for the ‘small-
normal’ portion size was not significantly different from the midpoint of the scale, t(44) =
0.56, p = .58, d = 0.18.
Likewise, perceived normality significantly varied between portion sizes in Study 2,
F(1.69, 60.92) = 79.34, p <.001, partial η2 = .69. The mean normality rating for ‘smaller than
normal’ was significantly lower, t(36) = -2.83, p = .01, d = 0.50, and for ‘large-normal’ was
significantly higher, t(36) = 9.15, p <.001, d = 1.60, than the midpoint of the scale, but so was
the normality rating for the ‘small-normal’ portion size, t(36) = 4.76, p <.001, d = 0.75.
Consistent with the norm range model, ratings on the perceived normality scale were
negatively correlated with additional intake in each respective portion size condition with
“higher than normal” ratings predicting lower intake and “lower than normal” ratings
predicting lower intake, although this was not statistically significant across all conditions
(Table 2). Similarly, the aggregated correlation between ratings of perceived normality and
additional intake in each respective condition indicated that higher perceived normality
ratings were associated with lower additional intake overall, but this correlation was
significant in Study 1, R = -0.35, p <.001, but not in Study 2, R = -0.22, p = .056.
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
19Portion size normality and additional food intake
Participants’ self-reported usual portion size of the lunch food tended to fall between
the ‘small normal’ and ‘large normal’ portions in Study 1 but was closer to the ‘smaller than
normal’ portion size in Study 2. See online supplemental materials.
Order effects
The order in which participants completed the portion size conditions did not
moderate any of the effects in primary analyses (effect of portion size condition on intake
from the served portion, additional energy intake, or total energy intake) in either Study 1 or
Study 2. In Study 2, controlling for portion size order resulted in a minor deviation from the
pattern of results in the primary analysis of additional intake such that the difference between
the ‘smaller than normal’ and ‘small-normal’ portion size conditions was no longer
significant, m difference = 25.63 kcal, SE = 18.51, p = .18. See online supplemental materials
for full results.
General Discussion
Across two experimental laboratory studies, in comparison to when served a ‘small-normal’
portion of food, we found evidence of greater additional eating when participants were served
an initial portion that was visually perceived by an independent sample of participants as
being ‘smaller than normal’. This absolute effect size was small but statistically significant in
the main analyses of Study 1 and in sensitivity analyses in Study 2. We found less evidence
of a difference in additional intake associated with the same sized difference in portion size
between a ‘large-normal’ portion and one that was smaller but still perceived as ‘normal’.
However, despite evidence of greater additional intake observed after consuming a ‘smaller
than normal’ than a ‘small-normal’ portion, participants did not fully compensate for the
difference in energy consumed from the initial potion: total meal energy intake including ad
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
20Portion size normality and additional food intake
libitum intake of additional food was still significantly lower after consuming a ‘smaller than
normal’ portion. Furthermore, despite smaller portions being associated with consuming
significantly less energy than larger portions, there were no accompanying differences in
participants’ self-reported post-meal hunger or fullness between portion size conditions, in
line with some previous findings (14, 28-30) but not others (10, 16, 31).
There were some differences across the two studies. Participants in Study 2 consumed
more energy than participants in Study 1. There are several factors that may have contributed
to this behaviour. First, the two-course meal structure in Study 2 may have conveyed to
participants that consuming at least some dessert was normative or expected. Second, due to
the wider variety of food available to participants, sensory specific satiation is less likely to
have constrained additional intake. These factors may have dampened the influence of
perceived normality of the portion size of the served meal component in Study 2 relative to
Study 1 and may explain why our predictions about portion size normality were more clearly
supported in Study 1 than Study 2. Other differences (e.g., sensory experience, macronutrient
composition) between the meals provided in the studies could have also contributed to
differences in the pattern of results.
There are some caveats to interpreting the results of the present studies in relation to
the ‘norm range’ model. In line with the norm range model, perceptions of portion size
normality tended to be negatively correlated with the amount of additional intake in
unplanned analyses. However, participants’ end of study ratings of the ‘large-normal’ portion
sizes (and the ‘small-normal’ portion in Study 2) were significantly higher than ‘normal’, and
participants’ self-reported ‘usual’ portion size of the study foods were closer to the ‘smaller
than normal’ than the ‘normal’ portion sizes in Study 2. These findings indicate that the
served portion sizes may have been too large for some participants, however this may also be
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
21Portion size normality and additional food intake
attributable to measurement issues. The portions were selected based on visual judgments of
portion size ‘normality’ from an independent sample of participants in a previous study (23).
We adopted this approach to prevent hypothesis awareness that may have arisen from
participants in the present studies assessing perceived normality at the start of the study,
which was successful as only a small number of participants were aware of the true
hypothesis of the studies. We believe this approach was justified as we have previously
observed considerable overlap between the perceived ‘norm range’ of independent samples
and we employed the same recruitment strategy and stratification (23). Prior exposure to and
consumption of different portion sizes has now been shown to affect perceived normality (18,
32, 33), meaning these measures being completed at the end of the studies may have been
contaminated by exposure to portion sizes during the study. Further, portion size normality
ratings were assessed consecutively which may have artificially inflated the differences
between the portion size conditions (e.g., participants may have evenly spaced the ratings
along the scale, rather than clustering in the middle of the scale around perceived ‘normal’ as
was predicted). An alternative interpretation is that despite these methodological difficulties,
perceived normality does not have a significant influence on additional intake and as such,
future research corroborating the preliminary evidence for a ‘norm range’ interpretation of
additional intake following consumption of a moderate to small initial portion of food would
be valuable. This could be achieved using a between-subjects design to simultaneously
minimise hypothesis awareness and allow cleaner measurement of perceived portion size
normality, or by manipulating perceived portion size normality to circumvent the issue of
measurement contamination.
The present work adds to the evidence that reducing portion size can reduce short-
term energy intake and provides tentative preliminary empirical support regarding one factor
that may influence the boundaries of effective portion size reductions. However, we note that
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
22Portion size normality and additional food intake
further research addressing the methodological limitations acknowledged above is required to
provide more convincing evidence). Some previous work has shown that reducing portion
size decreases acute energy intake and this decrease is not fully compensated for by
consumers with increased intake from side dishes (34), or at later meals (14, 15). However, in
a 6–month free-living RCT, reduction of weekday lunch portions from 800kcal to 400kcal
was associated with neither significantly lower daily energy intake nor greater weight loss
(15), suggesting that if portion size is decreased by too much, compensation may occur. Our
findings provide some preliminary support for a ‘norm range’ theoretical model of the effect
of portion size (23). Specifically, the model and our findings tentatively suggest that if a
reduction in size results in a portion size being categorically perceived as a ‘normal’ sized
portion, immediate additional eating may be less likely than if the portion size is perceived as
‘smaller than normal’. Moreover, this model suggests that the exact size of reduction to any
given food that could be made without inviting substantial additional eating may be reliant on
the range of portion sizes for that food that most consumers visually perceived as being
‘normal’ in size, as opposed to a simple rule of thumb applied across all foods (e.g. a 50%
reduction in portion size). It is important to note that our studies focused on additional eating
after an initial portion both during the same course (Study 1) and in a second course of the
same meal (Study 2) so our conclusions only reflect short-term patterns of intake and only
part of overall energy balance. Further work is needed to examine longer-term patterns of
additional intake in response to reduced portion sizes (e.g., over several days, as has been
examined in children with standard versus ‘increased’ portions, 35), although a recent
systematic review concluded that acute effects of dietary interventions on appetite and energy
intake tend to be sustained if the initial effects are robust (36). The relevance of the present
work in explaining the effect that increases in portion size have on energy intake may now be
valuable to examine.
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
23Portion size normality and additional food intake
A strength of the studies reported here is that detailed cover stories were used, which
were successful at disguising the study aims from the majority of participants (37). Both
studies were well-powered, and Study 2 was pre-registered and demonstrated generalisability
of the pattern of results of Study 1 to a different food and different meal structure. We also
provided participants with portion sizes that would be more representative of meals served
outside of the laboratory which increases ecological validity. For example, although plate
clearing is very common when eating (38), for methodological reasons traditional laboratory
portion size studies are designed to be so large that participants are unable to finish them. We
allowed a variable washout period (7-10 days) in order to facilitate scheduling and retention
of participants, but a 7-day washout (sessions on same day of the week) would have been
preferable. It is possible that outside of the laboratory setting consumers may more freely
engage in additional eating of self-chosen foods or outside of the single meal occasion (as
evidenced in previous work, e.g., 39, 40, 41), which may result in different patterns of
additional intake than was observed in the present research. There is now a need to test
whether the pattern of results observed here can be reproduced in more naturalistic settings
and by assessing patterns of food intake over longer time periods (42). Another question for
future research is the extent to which individual differences may affect additional intake after
consumption of smaller portions, as the present studies were not designed to examine this.
For example, satiety responsiveness (43) may dictate the amount of additional intake,
although the effect portion size has on energy intake has not been shown to be consistently
moderated by satiety responsiveness (35, 44). Although a strength of the present research was
that we compared three different sized portions inside and outside of the ‘norm range’ for two
different foods and two different meal structures, comparing patterns of additional eating in
response to a greater number of portion sizes varying in perceived normality will now be
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
24Portion size normality and additional food intake
needed to provide a more robust test of the norm range model, and would be another useful
direction for future research.
There are calls for policy action to encourage food manufacturers and retailers to
reduce food portion sizes in order to reduce energy intake and tackle obesity (2, 12).
However, it has been argued that variations in portion size are more likely to lead to
compensatory responses than interventions relating to other aspects of eating behaviour such
as ingestive frequency, meaning that portion size may be a less important consideration for
overall energy intake and population weight gain (7, 45). Here we made subtle reductions to
moderately sized portions and despite evidence of a small increase in additional eating in
response to portions perceived as being ‘smaller than normal’ and did not fully compensate
for the portion size reductions, suggesting that further reductions to portions that are already
small to moderate in size have the potential to reduce overall energy intake.
Conclusions
Two studies provide preliminary evidence that perceived portion size normality may
influence additional intake, but further research testing the effects on energy intake of
manipulating a wider range of portion sizes that vary according to perceived normality over a
longer period of time is required.
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
25Portion size normality and additional food intake
Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Rebecca Bianchi and Anne-Laure de Fornel for
assistance with data collection.
Authors’ contributions. All authors contributed to designing the research, ER and AH
oversaw data collection and analysed data, AH drafted the manuscript and all authors
contributed to the final written manuscript. All authors were responsible for the final approval
of the manuscript.
Additional files. Online Supplementary materials (.docx). Contains CONSORT flow
diagram, additional methodological details, and additional details on secondary analyses.
Ethics approval and consent to participate. This research received ethical approval
(University of Liverpool Institute of Psychology, Health and Society Research Ethics
Committee (approval codes IPHS-1516-LB-252-Generic RETH000955, IPHS-1617-LB-277-
Generic RETH000955) and all participants provided informed consent.
Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03731273. Registered 6 November 2018 –
retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03731273.
Availability of data and materials. The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article
are available in the Open Science Framework repository (https://osf.io/txf9u/).
References
1. Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003;289(4):450-3.2. Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Shemilt I, Jebb SA. Downsizing: policy options to reduce portion sizes to help tackle obesity. BMJ. 2015;351:h5863.3. Young LR, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. American journal of public health. 2002;92(2):246-9.4. Livingstone MBE, Pourshahidi LK. Portion size and obesity. Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal. 2014;5(6):829-34.5. Kelly MT, Rennie KL, Wallace JMW, Robson PJ, Welch RW, Hannon-Fletcher MP, et al. Associations between the portion sizes of food groups consumed and measures of adiposity in the
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533534535536537538539540541542543544
26Portion size normality and additional food intake
British National Diet and Nutrition Survey. British Journal of Nutrition. 2008;101(9):1413-20. Epub 10/10.6. Pereira J, Félix P, Mattei J, Fisberg R. Differences over 12 Years in Food Portion Size and Association with Excess Body Weight in the City of São Paulo, Brazil. Nutrients. 2018;10(6).7. Herman CP, Polivy J, Vartanian LR, Pliner P. Are large portions responsible for the obesity epidemic? Physiol Behav. 2016;156:177-81. Epub 2016/01/26.8. Hollands GJ, Shemilt I, Marteau TM, Jebb SA, Lewis HB, Wei Y, et al. Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015(9):Cd011045. Epub 2015/09/15.9. Zlatevska N, Dubelaar C, Holden SS. Sizing up the effect of portion size on consumption: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Marketing. 2014;78(3):140-54.10. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Meengs JS. The effect of large portion sizes on energy intake is sustained for 11 days. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(6):1535-43. Epub 2007/06/15.11. Jeffery RW, Rydell S, Dunn CL, Harnack LJ, Levine AS, Pentel PR, et al. Effects of portion size on chronic energy intake. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007;4:27. Epub 2007/06/29.12. Steenhuis I, Poelman M. Portion Size: Latest Developments and Interventions. Current Obesity Reports. 2017;6(1):10-7.13. Steenhuis IH, Vermeer WM. Portion size: review and framework for interventions. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2009;6(1):1-10.14. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Meengs JS. Reductions in portion size and energy density of foods are additive and lead to sustained decreases in energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(1):11-7. Epub 2006/01/10.15. French SA, Mitchell NR, Wolfson J, Harnack LJ, Jeffery RW, Gerlach AF, et al. Portion size effects on weight gain in a free living setting. Obesity. 2014;22(6):1400-5.16. Lewis HB, Ahern AL, Solis‐Trapala I, Walker CG, Reimann F, Gribble FM, et al. Effect of reducing portion size at a compulsory meal on later energy intake, gut hormones, and appetite in overweight adults. Obesity. 2015;23(7):1362-70.17. Kerameas K, Vartanian LR, Herman CP, Polivy J. The effect of portion size and unit size on food intake: Unit bias or segmentation effect? Health Psychology. 2015;34(6):670.18. Robinson E, Kersbergen I. Portion size and later food intake: evidence on the ‘normalizing’ effect of reducing food portion sizes. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2018;107(4):640-6.19. Herman CP, Polivy J, Pliner P, Vartanian LR. Mechanisms underlying the portion-size effect. Physiology & Behavior. 2015;144:129-36.20. Herman CP, Polivy J. Normative influences on food intake. Physiology & Behavior. 2005;86(5):762-72.21. Vartanian LR, Reily NM, Spanos S, McGuirk LC, Herman CP, Polivy J. Hunger, taste, and normative cues in predictions about food intake. Appetite. 2017;116:511-7.22. Versluis I, Papies EK. The Role of Social Norms in the Portion Size Effect: Reducing Normative Relevance Reduces the Effect of Portion Size on Consumption Decisions. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7:756.23. Haynes A, Hardman CA, Makin ADJ, Halford JCG, Jebb SA, Robinson E. Visual perceptions of portion size normality and intended food consumption: A norm range model. Food Quality and Preference. 2019;72:77-85.24. Rolls BJ, Rolls ET, Rowe EA, Sweeney K. Sensory specific satiety in man. Physiology & Behavior. 1981;27(1):137-42.25. NatCen Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2014. In: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health University College London, editor.: UK Data Service; 2016.26. Sawilowsky SS. New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods. 2009;8(2):597-9.27. Bakdash JZ, Marusich LR. Repeated measures correlation. Frontiers in psychology. 2017;8:456.28. Kral TV, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Combined effects of energy density and portion size on energy intake in women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004;79(6):962-8.29. Roe LS, Kling SMR, Rolls BJ. What is eaten when all of the foods at a meal are served in large portions? Appetite. 2016;99:1-9.
545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599
27Portion size normality and additional food intake
30. Zuraikat FM, Roe LS, Privitera GJ, Rolls BJ. Increasing the size of portion options affects intake but not portion selection at a meal. Appetite. 2016;98:95-100.31. Diliberti N, Bordi PL, Conklin MT, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Increased Portion Size Leads to Increased Energy Intake in a Restaurant Meal. Obesity Research. 2004;12(3):562-8.32. Robinson E, Oldham M, Cuckson I, Brunstrom JM. Visual exposure to large and small portion sizes and perceptions of portion size normality: Three experimental studies. Appetite. 2016;98.33. Robinson E, Henderson J, Gregory, Keenan S, Kersbergen I. When a portion becomes a norm: Exposure to a smaller vs. larger portion of food affects later food intake. Food Quality and Preference. 2019;75.34. Carstairs S, Caton S, Blundell-Birtill P, Rolls B, Hetherington M, Cecil J. Can reduced intake associated with downsizing a high energy dense meal item be offset by increased vegetable variety in 3–5-year-old children? Nutrients. 2018;10(12):1879.35. Smethers AD, Roe LS, Sanchez CE, Zuraikat FM, Keller KL, Kling SM, et al. Portion size has sustained effects over 5 days in preschool children: a randomized trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2019;109(5):1361-72.36. Halford JCG, Masic U, Marsaux CFM, Jones AJ, Lluch A, Marciani L, et al. Systematic review of the evidence for sustained efficacy of dietary interventions for reducing appetite or energy intake. Obesity Reviews. 2018;19(10).37. Robinson E, Bevelander KE, Field M, Jones A. Methodological and reporting quality in laboratory studies of human eating behavior. Appetite. 2018;125.38. Robinson E, Hardman CA. Empty plates and larger waists: a cross-sectional study of factors associated with plate clearing habits and body weight. European Journal Of Clinical Nutrition. 2015;70:750.39. de Castro JM. Prior Day's Intake Has Macronutrient-Specific Delayed Negative Feedback Effects on the Spontaneous Food Intake of Free-Living Humans. The Journal of Nutrition. 1998;128(1):61-7.40. McKiernan F, Hollis JH, Mattes RD. Short-term dietary compensation in free-living adults. Physiology & Behavior. 2008;93(4):975-83.41. Champagne CM, Han H, Bajpeyi S, Rood J, Johnson WD, Lammi-Keefe CJ, et al. Day-to-Day Variation in Food Intake and Energy Expenditure in Healthy Women: The Dietitian II Study. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2013;113(11):1532-8.42. Best M, Barsalou LW, Papies EK. Studying Human Eating Behaviour in the Laboratory: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Suggestions. Appetite. 2018;130.43. Zuraikat FM, Roe LS, Smethers AD, Reihart LW, Rolls BJ. Does the cost of a meal influence the portion size effect? Appetite. 2018;127:341-8.44. Zuraikat FM, Roe LS, Smethers AD, Rolls BJ. Doggy bags and downsizing: Packaging uneaten food to go after a meal attenuates the portion size effect in women. Appetite. 2018;129.45. Mattes R. Energy intake and obesity: Ingestive frequency outweighs portion size. Physiology & Behavior. 2014;134:110-8.
600601602603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640
28Portion size normality and additional food intake
Figure Legends.
Figure 1. Norm range model. Norm range = range of portions visually perceived as ‘normal’
by an independent sample of participants. [a] and [b] represent equivalent changes to portion
size. Significantly greater additional intake hypothesised for [a] (comparison of ‘smaller than
normal’ to ‘small-normal’), but not [b] (comparison of ‘small-normal’ to ‘large-normal’).
Significant reduction in overall energy intake hypothesised for [b] (comparison of ‘small-
normal’ to ‘large-normal’) but not [a] (comparison of ‘smaller than normal’ to ‘small
normal’).
Figure 2. Energy intake (kcals) by portion size condition for Study 1 (a) and Study 2 (b).
Percentage values represent intake as a percentage of served portion. Error bars represent
standard errors. Values on comparison bars = p for pairwise comparisons. *p <.05 in pre-
registered sensitivity analyses.
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
29Portion size normality and additional food intake
Table 1.
Pre- and post-meal hunger and fullness by portion size condition, M (SD).
Study 1 Study 2
Smaller than normal Small-normal Large-normal Smaller than normal Small-normal Large-normal
Pre-meal Hunger 59.40 (23.18)ab 67.07 (22.34)a 70.16 (20.83)b 62.35 (22.18) 64.73 (23.03) 66.35 (22.10)
Fullness 21.44 (19.63)a 18.44 (20.38) 14.56 (20.56)a 14.14 (16.01) 13.97 (14.74) 14.65 (14.85)
Post-meal Hunger 8.09 (15.81) 6.33 (8.54) 7.89 (12.85) 4.27 (5.15) 9.22 (11.75) 8.78 (9.48)
Fullness 83.36 (15.91) 86.91 (11.60) 85.16 (15.39) 85.65 (11.93) 77.38 (13.06) 77.32 (19.92)
Note. Study 1 values with common superscripts on the same row significantly differ between conditions (p <.05). No pairwise comparisons were conducted for Study 2 as there was no main effect of condition or time x condition interaction.
654
655
656657
30Portion size normality and additional food intake
Table 2.
Perceived normality of portion sizes and correlation with additional intake
Smaller than normal Small normal Large normal
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Study 1 2.9 (1.1) 4.2 (1.1) 5.0 (1.1)
Correlation -.54*** -.41** -.27
Study 2 3.5 (1.0) 4.6 (0.8) 5.6 (1.0)
Correlation -.17 -.18 -.34*
Note. ‘Smaller than normal’ (versus ‘small-normal’) and ‘small-normal’ (versus ‘large-
normal’) portion sizes were associated with significantly lower perceived normality ratings in
both studies (p <.001). Perceived normality scale: 1 (“not normal, it is too small”) to 7, (“not
normal, it is too big”), with a midpoint of 4 (“normal”).
***p <.001, **p <.01, *p <.05.
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
top related